[Delwin]

I knew what you were getting at Andy, Obvious double standard is obvious, but in this case, mom is cree indian Catholic, dad is Muslim. It is not to be automatically assumed that the assailants were Muslim, but your point is understood.

$1:

A Wake will be held at the Sacred Heart Church of the First Peoples, 10821 - 96 Street Edmonton, AB on Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Mass of Christian Burial will be Celebrated at Our Lady of Good Help Maronite Catholic Church, 9809 - 76 Avenue, Edmonton, AB on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. Interment will follow at Our Lady of Peace Cemetery. - See more at:

http://m.legacy.com/obituaries/edmontonjournal/obituary.aspx?n=geo-mounsef&pid=164957847&referrer=0&preview=false#sthash.yM4Zjc29.dpuf

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

Well thank God somebody is willing to take action when our limp wristed justice system won't. We need more of this sort of thing. But why just cut off his thumb, this will still cost the system court and jail time. Just a bullet to the back of the head, and it's done. Life for a life.

Just a little bit of Redneck Kharma!

[DrCaleb]

I got the sarcasm in your first post, but your second makes no sense.

andyt andyt:

No Muslims involved anywhere, just good ole boys taking matters into their own hands, as is often advocated here.

By whom?

andyt andyt:

Come one guys, this guy killed a kid. Let's have a big cheer for the brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what.

Again, with the Muslims? You know Edmonton is in Alberta, right? I'm not even going to begin to condone what was done to this douchebag, but - Muslims? Really?

The difference between this case and your case in Kamloops is that there is little doubt as to this guy's involvement. He was arrested at the scene, and it took entirely too long to extricate the little boy and his mother from the scene on the restaurant patio. Witnesses watched the little boy slowly die. It was horrific. It made the local news for days.

It's only going to be a question of sentencing, not guilt. And I don't like to pass judgement by journalism, but even I have trouble thinking otherwise.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I got the sarcasm in your first post, but your second makes no sense.

andyt andyt:

No Muslims involved anywhere, just good ole boys taking matters into their own hands, as is often advocated here.

By whom?

andyt andyt:

Come one guys, this guy killed a kid. Let's have a big cheer for the brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what.

Again, with the Muslims? You know Edmonton is in Alberta, right? I'm not even going to begin to condone what was done to this douchebag, but - Muslims? Really?

The difference between this case and your case in Kamloops is that there is little doubt as to this guy's involvement. He was arrested at the scene, and it took entirely too long to extricate the little boy and his mother from the scene on the restaurant patio. Witnesses watched the little boy slowly die. It was horrific. It made the local news for days.

It's only going to be a question of sentencing, not guilt. And I don't like to pass judgement by journalism, but even I have trouble thinking otherwise.

Yes my second post made sense. Zip asked with the wife was also assorted. I said it was because of collective guilt just as Muslims are deemed to have collective guilt. At the time I didn't realize that the kid was Muslim, it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Don't understand your sentence about Edmonton.

As for people supporting vigilantism on CKA, where have you been if you need convincing of that? I believe that is the point of Yogis post just above.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Yes my second post made sense. Zip asked with the wife was also assorted. I said it was because of collective guilt just as Muslims are deemed to have collective guilt. At the time I didn't realize that the kid was Muslim, it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I knew the kid was Muslim, so that's why it didn't make sense. Why would collective guilt be a reason for impaired driving causing death?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Come one guys, this guy killed a kid. Let's have a big cheer for the brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what.

Again, with the Muslims? You know Edmonton is in Alberta, right? I'm not even going to begin to condone what was done to this douchebag, but - Muslims? Really?

andyt andyt:

Don't understand your sentence about Edmonton.

The 'brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what', as you describe them, were from Edmonton. What odds that they are actually Muslim, or are you just projecting, since you only seem to think we are all just redneck gun toting refugees of Texas North? Muslim Redneck squads dressed up like the Police and roaming around cutting impaired drivers thumbs off, is that what we are to be stereotyped as now?

andyt andyt:

As for people supporting vigilantism on CKA, where have you been if you need convincing of that? I believe that is the point of Yogis post just above.

I don't see Yogi advocating for vigilantism. He just doesn't seem to be bothered by it much. I don't advocate for it either, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the motivation behind it.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Yes my second post made sense. Zip asked with the wife was also assorted. I said it was because of collective guilt just as Muslims are deemed to have collective guilt. At the time I didn't realize that the kid was Muslim, it really has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I knew the kid was Muslim, so that's why it didn't make sense. Why would collective guilt be a reason for impaired driving causing death?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Come one guys, this guy killed a kid. Let's have a big cheer for the brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what.

Again, with the Muslims? You know Edmonton is in Alberta, right? I'm not even going to begin to condone what was done to this douchebag, but - Muslims? Really?

andyt andyt:

Don't understand your sentence about Edmonton.

The 'brave Muslims who stood up for justice and showed this guy what's what', as you describe them, were from Edmonton. What odds that they are actually Muslim, or are you just projecting, since you only seem to think we are all just redneck gun toting refugees of Texas North? Muslim Redneck squads dressed up like the Police and roaming around cutting impaired drivers thumbs off, is that what we are to be stereotyped as now?

andyt andyt:

As for people supporting vigilantism on CKA, where have you been if you need convincing of that? I believe that is the point of Yogis post just above.

I don't see Yogi advocating for vigilantism. He just doesn't seem to be bothered by it much. I don't advocate for it either, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the motivation behind it.

For fucks sake. Collective guilt is a reason the wife was assaulted. It has nothing to do with whatever the original event was, just that she didn't do it yet was still assaulted because of what her husband did. It's like attacking a German born after the war because of what Germany did during the war.

I don't know if the attackers were muslim. Delwin pointed out that this was a reason why maybe we didn't get more cheering for the vigilantes. The attackers could also have been Cree, since the boy's mother was, or as you say whites.


Yogis comment can be take either way. I guess unless he clarifies it, we'll never know. We've had people on CKA positively drooling about how they would like to torture somebody who hasn't even been convicted of a crime. Support for vigilantism doesn't mean people would do it themselves, just that they have no problem with it. YOu know, just like all the Muslims support terrorism.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

For fucks sake. Collective guilt is a reason the wife was assaulted. It has nothing to do with whatever the original event was, just that she didn't do it yet was still assaulted because of what her husband did. It's like attacking a German born after the war because of what Germany did during the war.

And that's what happens when you don't quote people and don't use complete sentences. Your intentions are then unclear.

andyt andyt:

I don't know if the attackers were muslim. Delwin pointed out that this was a reason why maybe we didn't get more cheering for the vigilantes. The attackers could also have been Cree, since the boy's mother was, or as you say whites.

And yet, you just lauded them as 'brave Muslims'. Project much?

andyt andyt:

Yogis comment can be take either way. I guess unless he clarifies it, we'll never know. We've had people on CKA positively drooling about how they would like to torture somebody who hasn't even been convicted of a crime. Support for vigilantism doesn't mean people would do it themselves, just that they have no problem with it. YOu know, just like all the Muslims support terrorism.

No, I don't know that. Which is why I often post stories when the Muslim community condemns actions of extremists. It's funny too, when I don't automatically assume things, I end up getting labelled as 'biased'.

[andyt]

Sorry. I replied right after Zip's post. Doesn't that give you a hint?

You don't understand sarcasm now?

Do you take everything personally? The last sentence is about people who do think all Muslims support terrorism, because they haven't spoken out enough or what have you. It popped into my head as I was writing about quiet support for vigilantism - seems some similarity there. As in saying karma is a bitch might just put you in the pro vigilante side the same way not speaking out against the jihadis is seen as supporting them.

[stratos]

$1:

I would have thought the justice served posts would have flown heavy and thick by now.

See what happens when you think. You end up being wrong.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Sorry. I replied right after Zip's post. Doesn't that give you a hint?

No, because you didn't quote him. Were you responding to Zip, or the article? Your first post is clear, because there are no others. After that, it's anyone's guess unless you make it clear. Your 4th post is clear, because you actually used the 'quote' function.

andyt andyt:

You don't understand sarcasm now?

For it to be sarcasm, it has to be in context. I don't find calling people dressed up as policemen who kidnap and assault a person, 'brave Muslims' to be sarcastic no matter how I interpret it.

andyt andyt:

Do you take everything personally? The last sentence is about people who do think all Muslims support terrorism, because they haven't spoken out enough or what have you. It popped into my head as I was writing about quiet support for vigilantism - seems some similarity there. As in saying karma is a bitch might just put you in the pro vigilante side the same way not speaking out against the jihadis is seen as supporting them.

I take very little personally. Unless people project things on to me that I have not said, by saying 'you know that . . .' or 'everybody knows . . .' because whatever follows is usually wrong.

[BRAH]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

You're supposed to be Mr Logic. Read what I said again. It's not about drunk driving. Sheesh.

"Non Sequitr"; "it does not follow".

$1:

Richard Suter, the man accused of killing two-year-old Geo Mounsef by driving his SUV onto a restaurant patio, was abducted and seriously assaulted, his lawyer said Friday.

. . .

Suter was charged with impaired driving causing death, two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and refusing to give a breath sample.

It's definitely about drunk driving.

It's about the parents getting some kind of justice because the system is flawed.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Sorry. I replied right after Zip's post. Doesn't that give you a hint?

No, because you didn't quote him. Were you responding to Zip, or the article? Your first post is clear, because there are no others. After that, it's anyone's guess unless you make it clear. Your 4th post is clear, because you actually used the 'quote' function.

Oh come on. Surely you could figure that out. IF you read the posts sequentially, it follows very clearly. If you skipped it, of course, then really my post would be a non-sequiteur - should give you a clue to look up to see what it's replying to. It's certainly what I do in cases like that. But then I read the posts sequentially.

I'm not sure if this is just some very convoluted way of yours to get me to use the quote function or if you really have that much trouble following along.

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

You're supposed to be Mr Logic. Read what I said again. It's not about drunk driving. Sheesh.

"Non Sequitr"; "it does not follow".

$1:

Richard Suter, the man accused of killing two-year-old Geo Mounsef by driving his SUV onto a restaurant patio, was abducted and seriously assaulted, his lawyer said Friday.

. . .

Suter was charged with impaired driving causing death, two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and refusing to give a breath sample.

It's definitely about drunk driving.

It's about the parents getting some kind of justice because the system is flawed.

Ah, finally somebody supporting vigilantism, even if it might have been perpetrated by Muslims.

[stratos]

$1:

Ah, finally somebody supporting vigilantism, even if it might have been perpetrated by Muslims.

Please point out where any of this has to deal with Muslims. You are using made up things in your mind to attempt to make some illogical point that is so flawed it has everyone going WTF is andyt talking about.